"A theological
shift is underway among evangelicals as well as other Christians...This
trend began, I believe, because of a fresh and faithful reading of the
Bible in dialogue with modern culture, which places emphasis on autonomy,
temporality, and historical change."[1] This announcement from Dr. Clark
Pinnock, a respected evangelical theologian, is neither a criticism, nor
a warning, but a promising development in the view of its author.

A number
of evangelical leaders met at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near
Chicago two years ago for the purpose of defining the term "evangelical,"
but many left as confused concerning what that label comprehends as they
were when they arrived. It is becoming increasingly difficult to say what
an evangelical is and is not. Basically, American evangelicalism divides,
from the mid-eighteenth century on, into two traditions: revivalistic and
Reformational (as in the 16th century Reformation). While the Great Awakening
in America and the Evangelical Revival in Britain were examples of the
harmony between reformation and revival, these eventually became rivals
as the latter developed an Arminian theology. As the Arminian branch of
revivalism gained the popular advantage, evangelicalism became increasingly
shaped by human-centered theology on a popular level even while its principal
works of systematic theology were reformed.

However,
today we see a shift even within the evangelical theological leadership.
Pinnock writes, "It is my strong impression, confirmed to me even by those
not pleased by it, that Augustinian thinking is losing its hold on present-day
Christians." Evangelists are not the only ones preaching an Arminian gospel:
"It is hard to find a Calvinist theologian willing to defend Reformed theology,
including the views of both Calvin and Luther, in all its rigorous particulars
now that Gordon Clark is no longer with us and John Gerstner is retired...So
I do not think I stand alone." The drift is on. Pinnock insists that Augustine
was shaped by Greek thinking more than scripture and the reformers simply
followed his mistakes, but that was acceptable for their time: "Just as
Augustine came to terms with ancient Greek thinking, so we are making peace
with the culture of modernity."[2]

The purpose
of these quotes is not to focus attention on one evangelical theologian's
departure from Reformation theology, but to raise the question in very
practical terms, "Is it possible to be an 'evangelical Arminian'?" In this
article I attempt to defend a negative answer to that important question.

What is
an Evangelical?

One might
think that the term "protestant" has been around a lot longer than "evangelical,"
the latter often associated with the crusade and television evangelism
of recent years. However, the term "evangelical" is the older of the two.
It appears in medieval manuscripts, describing a qualification of a good
preacher: He must be evangelical. Until the Reformation, however, that
adjective could mean anything from having a sincere love for Christ to
possessing missionary zeal. When Luther arrived on the scene he was eager
to employ the time-honored term in the service of gospel recovery. After
all, what could be more appropriate as a designation for a man or woman
of the Reformation? It was all about a recovery of the evangel itself.

Thus,
the term took on a new significance, moving from an adjective to a noun.
One was not only "evangelical" in the ambiguous medieval sense of being
pious, zealous, and faithful, but an evangelical in the sense that one
adhered to the Reformation's tenets. After 1520 an evangelical was a person
who was committed to the sufficiency of scripture, the priesthood of all
believers, the total lostness of humans, the sole mediation of Christ,
the gracious efficacy and finality of God's redemptive work in Christ through
election, propitiation, calling and keeping. The linchpin for all of this
was the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone,
because of Christ alone. Thus, the believer, declared righteous by virtue
of God's satisfaction with Christ's holiness imputed (credited) to us through
faith alone, is simul iustus et peccator--"simultaneously justified and
sinful."

The evangelicals,
therefore, whether Lutheran or Reformed, insisted that this was the gospel.
It was not a peripheral area of abstract doctrinal debate on which Christians
could "agree to disagree agreeably." It was not merely an implication of
the gospel or a part of the gospel: It was the gospel! It was this message
and no other, be it ever so similar, that everyone had to get right. On
other matters Christians of goodwill might differ, but without the distinction
between a gospel of works and a gospel of grace alone, Luther wrote, one
cannot distinguish a Christian from a Muslim or Jew. Calvin's successor
in Geneva, Theodore Beza, wrote, "Ignorance of this distinction between
Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted
and still corrupt Christianity."[3]

Theologians
and historians to the present have referred to the formal and material
principle of the Reformation, the former being the sufficiency of scripture,
and the latter being the doctrine of justification by grace alone through
faith alone. As the formal principle of the Reformation is "scripture alone!,"
we today must define "evangelical" according to scriptural teaching. If
the reformers misinterpreted the Bible on any one of these key teachings,
they must be corrected by those same scriptures. However, historically,
the term "evangelical" has referred to those who embraced either the Lutheran
or the Reformed confessions of faith. Only in the gradual Americanization
of the evangelical faith has this inheritance been jettisoned, as though
"scripture alone" meant that to merely adhere to the formal principle of
the Reformation was enough. As long as one believed the Bible, one could
stand wherever he or she liked on the material principle of God's method
in saving sinners. If this were true, one would have to concede to the
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses membership in the National Association
of Evangelicals.

There
are two ways of dealing with this question of defining "evangelical": scriptural
and historical, but in this brief space allow me to focus on the argument
that this term ought to be defined and used in its historical, time-honored
sense. While the Reformation may, theoretically, have erred on its chief
doctrines (since only scripture is infallible), it is nevertheless unavoidably
true that those who called themselves evangelicals have historically affirmed
and defended those teachings as being biblical. Thus, historically speaking,
those who do not affirm those doctrines are, by virtue of the law of non-contradiction,
not evangelicals.

What is
an 'Arminian'?

James
Arminius, one of Beza's students, first raised the eyebrows of the Dutch
Reformed Church by teaching that the person Paul describes in Romans chapter
seven was unregenerate, whereas the Reformed had always interpreted it
as a sad, but appropriate, picture of the Christian life (simultaneously
justified and sinful). But there was more controversy beneath this: Arminius
denied unconditional election, arguing that God made his eternal decision
based on his foreknowledge of faith and obedience. With this the entire
Reformed system was denied.

Upon his
death, however, Arminius's followers began to press the theologian's claims
even further. The "Remonstrants," as they were called, presented their
claims in five points: election was conditional (i.e., determined by foreseen
faith and obedience), the atonement was universal not only in sufficiency
but in intention, depravity is only partial, grace can be resisted, and
the regenerate can lose their salvation. Further, the Arminians denied
the Reformation belief that faith was a gift and that justification was
a purely forensic (legal) declaration. For them, it included a moral change
in the believer's life and faith itself, a work of humans, was the basis
for God's declaration. In 1618-19, the Synod of Dort, an international
conference of Reformed churches, the Remonstrants ("Arminians") were judged
heretical and the churches of the Reformation concurred, even those of
non-Reformed persuasion (as, for instance, the Lutherans).

Arminianism
came to the English-speaking world chiefly through the efforts of seventeenth-century
Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and the great
preacher, Lancelot Andrewes. The leading Puritans such as John Owen, Richard
Sibbes and Thomas Goodwin opposed Arminianism as a Protestant form of "Romanism"
in which the Christian faith degenerated into a moralism that confused
the Law and the Gospel and with-held from God his rightful praise for the
whole work of salvation. Eventually, the English "Arminian" element evolved
into the High Church wing of the English Church, emphasizing the importance
of ritual and the church hierarchy as well as the moralistic Deism which
characterized the preaching of the eighteenth century.

Wherever
Arminianism was adopted, Unitarianism followed, leading on to the bland
liberalism of present mainline denominations. This can be discerned in
the Netherlands, in Eastern Europe, in England, and in New England. In
fact, in a very short period of time, the General (Arminian) Baptists of
New England had become amalgamated into the Unitarian Church in the eighteenth
century.

This is
not simply an argument from the so-called "slippery slope": in other words,
if we allow for x, soon we will be embracing y. History actually bears
out the relationship between Arminianism and naturalism. One can readily
see how a shift from a God-centered message of human sinfulness and divine
grace to a human-centered message of human potential and relative divine
impotence could create a more secularized outlook. If human beings are
not so badly off, perhaps they do not need such a radical plan of salvation.
Perhaps all they need is a pep talk, some inspiration at halftime, so they
can get back into the game. Or perhaps they need an injection of grace,
as a spiritual antibiotic, to counteract the sinful affections. But in
Reformation theology, human beings do not need help. They need redemption.
They do not merely need someone to show them the way out; they need someone
to be their way out of spiritual death and darkness.

Thus,
the evangelicals who faced this challenge of Arminianism universally regarded
it as a heretical departure from the Christian faith. One simply could
not deny total depravity, unconditional election, justification by grace
alone through faith alone because of Christ alone, and continue to call
himself or herself an evangelical. There were many Christians who were
not evangelicals, but to be an evangelical meant that one adhered to these
biblical convictions. While Calvinists and Lutherans would disagree over
the scope of the atonement and the irresistability of grace and perseverance,
they were both strict monergists (from mono, meaning "one" and ergo, meaning
"working"). That is, they believed that one person saved us (namely, God),
while the Arminians were synergists, meaning that they believed that God
and the believer cooperated in this matter of attaining salvation. It was
this monergism which distinguished an evangelical from a non-evangelical
since the Reformation.

Are Arminians
Evangelicals?

The heart
of the Reformation debate was, Who saves whom? Does God save sinners? Or
do we save ourselves with God's help? The Roman Catholic Church was confused
on that question throughout the Middle Ages, sharply divided at the time
of the Reformation, but finally determined by the Council of Trent in the
mid-sixteenth century that the second answer was better. God's grace is
the source, but human cooperation with that grace is what makes God's saving
will effective. Thus, God justifies us by making us better and that involves
our own participation.

The orthodox
Protestants were not over-reacting, therefore, when they regarded the Arminian
denials as no different from the positions of Trent, which had declared
the evangelicals "anathema." It would have been bigoted for them, therefore,
to regard Trent's position as unorthodox if they were unwilling to say
the same of a similar "Protestant" deviation.

So what
does all of this mean for us nearly four centuries after Arminianism was
condemned by the Churches of England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland,
the French Protestants, and the evangelicals of Eastern Europe?

In the
British revival of the eighteenth century, Whitefield (a Calvinist) and
Wesley (an Arminian) were willing to work together as close friends and
allies in the evangelistic effort. However, as Wesley began to teach that
justification was not purely forensic (that is, a legal declaration), but
that it depended on "moment by moment" obedience, the Calvinists who had
enthusiastically supported the revival and led the evangelistic cause side
by side grew increasingly worried. Late in life, Wesley recorded some very
unfortunate statements in his Minutes of the Methodist Conference, including
the conclusion that his own position was but "a hair's breadth" from "salvation
by works." Fearing an implicit antinomianism (license) in the Reformation
doctrines, Wesley urged his supporters to warn the Calvinists "against
making void that solemn decree of God, 'without holiness no man shall see
the Lord,' by a vain imagination of being holy in Christ. O warn them that
if they remain unrighteous, the righteousness of Christ will profit them
nothing!"[4] John Wesley's favorite writer, William Law, wrote, "We are
to consider that God only knows what shortcomings in holiness He will accept;
therefore we can have not security of our salvation but by doing our utmost
to deserve it." "We have," said he, "nothing to rely on but the sincerity
of our endeavors and God's mercy."[5] Was Law an evangelical? If so, someone
owes Pope Leo an apology.

The doctrine
of justification--"simultaneously justified and sinful"--is scandalous
to human reason and Wesley is famous for his "Quadrilateral" of authority:
scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. So much for "scripture alone"!
Both the material and the formal principle of the Reformation are at least
undermined, if not denied. So much of tradition, experience, and reason
opposes this doctrine. One modern evangelical theologian writes, "We can
love God perfectly and we can be righteous in this world even as Christ
is righteous..." and adds that the Bible "leaves no place for voluntary
and known sin in the life of the believer."[6] Another adds, "But can it
really be true-saint and sinner simultaneously? I wish it were so...Simul
iustus et peccator? I hope it's true! I simply fear it's not."[7] These
views were presented in a volume that offered five views of sanctification
from evangelical writers.

In the
Evangelical Revival, therefore, Wesley was allowed to embrace Arminianism
while retaining the use of the evangelical label, in spite of the fact
that to that time evangelicalism had repudiated the position as the very
error of the medieval church that precipitated the Reformation in the first
place. In one of his best sermons Wesley nevertheless defined justification
not as a purely forensic (legal) declaration distinct from sanctification,
but as both deliverance from the guilt of sin and "the whole body of sin,
through Christ gradually 'formed in his heart.'" To be justified means
that one does not sin "by any habitual sin," "nor by any willful sin,"
"nor by any sinful desire," nor "by infirmities, whether in act, word or
thought...And though he cannot say he 'has not sinned,' yet now 'he sins
not.'"[8] Further, the Minutes for the First Annual Methodist Conference
affirm that repentance and works must precede faith, if by works one means
"obeying God as far as we can." "If a believer willfully sins, he thereby
forfeits his pardon." "Are works necessary to continuance of faith? Without
doubt, for a man may forfeit the gift of God either by sins of omission
or commission."

Justification
may be lost every time one willfully disobeys and Wesley adds, "We do not
find it affirmed expressly in Scripture that God imputes the righteousness
of Christ to any, although we do find that faith is imputed unto us for
righteousness." This imputation or crediting of faith as our righteousness,
rather than Christ's active and passive obedience, is precisely the doctrine
articulated by Arminius, rendering faith a work which achieves righteousness
before God. Knowing who will most likely balk against the teaching within
the evangelical Church of England, Wesley asks, "Have we not then unawares
leaned too much towards Calvinism" in the past? "It seems we have," he
answers, equating Calvinism with antinomianism.[9] Contemporary Wesleyan
theologian, John Lawson, writes, "This judicious and moderating 'Arminian
Evangelicalism,' which is now so largely characteristic of Anglo-Saxon
Protestantism, is perhaps the most enduring and important contribution
of the Methodist movement to theological understanding in the Church."[10]
While Wesleyans insist they affirm justification by faith alone, they define
it in the same moral terms rejected by evangelicals ever since the Reformation
debate. Lawson himself defines justification as "the first and all-important
stage in a renewed manner of life, actually changed for the better in mind
and heart, in will and action."[11] Thomas Aquinas could hardly have improved
on this definition.

Today,
theologians such as Dr. Clark Pinnock insist on wearing the "evangelical"
label while they move beyond Arminianism to an all-out denial of classical
theism. Such spokespersons may insist that they are merely contributing
to the ongoing evolution and upward development of doctrine, but in fact
they are merely reinventing old heresies. As Arminius revived Semi-Pelagianism,
Dr. Pinnock is merely advancing a revival of outright Pelagianism and Socinianism,
enhanced by the latest academic craze-process theism.

Once he
became an Arminian, Dr. Pinnock notes, "I soon realized something would
have to be done about the received doctrine of God." God is no longer timeless,
changeless, or even all-knowing. After all, "decisions not yet made do
not exist anywhere to be known even by God." Dr. Pinnock also denies original
sin, admitting that on this point, as on others, he is moving beyond Arminianism.
And the next domino? "Obviously it required me to reduce the precision
in which I understood the substitution [of Christ on the cross] to take
place."[12] It must be said that if such writers can continue to be regarded
as evangelical leaders (Dr. Pinnock is still a respected member of the
Evangelical Theological Society), it is up to us as heirs of the Protestant
Reformers to issue an apology to the Roman Catholic Church for dividing
over issues no more essential than these. Original sin, the substitutionary
atonement, justification, eternal judgment, and classical theism (the doctrine
of God) all must go, according to Dr. Pinnock and his team of writers in
A Case for Arminianism (Zondervan, 1989). "I do not think we should
feel we have lost something of absolute value when we find ourselves at
variance with some of the old so-called orthodox interpretations," Dr.
Pinnock concludes.

From where
I sit, the main problem is this: we have gone back to using "evangelical"
as an adjective. As its medieval use was ambiguous, referring more to a
general attitude of humility, zeal, and simple Christ-likeness, so too
the contemporary use falls most often into that category. An evangelical
is someone who "loves Jesus," who "wins souls," and who has a "sweet spirit."
Ken Myers notes that evangelicals no longer believe in orthodoxy, but in
orthopathos-a concern for right feelings rather than right thinking and
worship.[13] One Christian publisher released a book by a Franciscan "evangelical"
titled, Evangelical Catholics. Karl Barth, the great neo-orthodox
theologian, is now widely regarded in conservative Protestant circles as
evangelical and reformed, even though he reinterpreted the evangelical
message beyond recognition. Again, Barth may be, theoretically, correct
from the biblical point of view. I do not believe that he is and that is
my primary objection to neo-orthodoxy, but for those of us who hold scripture
as the final test of truth, I cannot ultimately reject Barthianism because
he is at variance with the creeds and confessions. Nevertheless, one can
say that Barth is not an evangelical in the historic, classical sense.
The same is true of "evangelical Roman Catholics" who still deny the sufficiency
of scripture, justification by grace alone through faith alone, and so
on. If "evangelical" means anything at all any more, it is essential that
we make such distinctions.

Having
said that, it is equally important to realize that this is not a matter
of bigotry or denominational pride. We will see non-evangelicals in heaven.
As I reflect on views that I used to hold, it is sobering to say the least
and it reminds me that the chances are pretty good that I have a good distance
to go yet. While we must believe certain essential truths in order to be
saved, we are not saved by the amount of doctrine that we know. There will
doubtless be Roman Catholics, Arminians, and others in Paradise who were
saved by God's grace even if they, like me, did not understand or appreciate
that grace as much as they should have. Nevertheless, if we are going to
still use "evangelical" as a noun to define a body of Christians holding
to a certain set of convictions, it is high time we got clear on these
matters. An evangelical cannot be an Arminian any more than an evangelical
can be a Roman Catholic. The distinctives of evangelicalism were denied
by Rome at the Council of Trent, by the Remonstrants in 1610, were confused
and challenged by John Wesley in the eighteenth century, and have become
either ignored or denied in contemporary "evangelicalism."

In conclusion,
the evangelical movement is faced with a difficult decision: either to
reclaim the meaning of "evangelical," or to shed its confinement. Let those
maverick "evangelicals" who deny the great truths of the evangelical (and
indeed, even the catholic) faith stand up with the courage of their convictions
and lead an exodus from evangelicalism, but it is to my mind the height
of arrogance and dishonesty to seek to represent oneself as something which
one clearly is not.

My purpose
has not been to pontificate about what ought to be done with certain individuals,
but to point out the serious crisis evangelicals face as a movement. It
is as if the evangelical leadership declared the movement a "consistency-free
zone," an island on which the law of non-contradiction does not apply.
A recent (April 27, 1992) issue of Christianity Today featured an
article offering a "third way," an alternative to both Calvinism and Arminianism
as "seeds for a biblical via media," as though the Bible taught something
in between the view that God alone saves and that we cooperate with God
in our salvation. But the main benefit of such a position is not that it
explains the biblical record, but that it "stakes off common ground-to
the surprise, at times, of participants all around-marking a safe and neutral
area large enough for both groups to stand while growing together in the
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. After 450 years of constant controversy,
perhaps this is no small step." After all, "The hallmark of a Christian
is not logic, but love" (pp. 32-33). The gospel is the church's most precious
possession, "for it is the power of God unto salvation" (Rom.1:20), and
the debates over its content are not likely to disappear by a generous
dosage of muddleheadedness of which we evangelicals seem to be in rather
large supply these days.

Today
one can be an evangelical-which has historically meant holding to total
depravity, unconditional election, justification by grace through faith
alone, the sufficiency of scripture-and at the same time be an Arminian,
denying or distorting this very evangelical message. Contemporary Christians,
generally speaking, have chosen to be agnostic on some of the most basic
evangelical convictions. A few generations ago, a defense of justification
would be considered a defense of evangelicalism itself, but today when
I describe this doctrine I often hear, "That's awfully Calvinistic." (Obviously,
those who say this have not run into many Lutherans!) What used to be considered
broadly evangelical is now regarded by many as narrowly Reformed. Such
shifts have been amply documented in Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation,
by University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter. This, I submit,
is just the sort of irresponsible thinking that is sweeping evangelicalism
out to sea in confusion, division and irrelevance.

Let us
lovingly confront our brothers and sisters in a spirit of boldness, but
humility, as we undertake to bring ourselves and our fellow Christians
into greater conformity to "the faith once and for all delivered to the
saints" (Jude 24).

Dr. Michael
Horton is the vice chairman of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing
Evangelicals, and is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster
Theological Seminary in California. Dr. Horton is a graduate of Biola University
(B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary in California (M.A.R.) and Wycliffe
Hall, Oxford (Ph.D.). Some of the books he has written or edited include
Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, Beyond Culture Wars, Power
Religion, In the Face of God, and most recently, We Believe.